Complexity and Fear

explorations of some sticky implications of current brain structure
research

by Dara Fogel

This is a longer, more formal bit of researching, but I felt it was relevant
to the topic and raises some interesting questions. ~Dara

According to Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure
in Young Adults, by Ryota Kanai, Tom Fielden, Colin Firth and Geraint Rees
in the April 26, 2011 issue of Current Biology, it is possible to fairly
reliably determine political affiliation from brain MRIs. The University of
London study says:

"Recent work has shown a correlation between liberalism and
conflict-oriented activity, measured by event-related potentials originating in
the anterior cingulated cortex. Here we show that this functional correlate of
political attitudes has a counterpart in brainstructure. [...] We found that
greater liberalism was associated with increased grey matter volume in the
anterior cingulated cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with
increased volume of the right amygdala. These results were replicated in an
independent sample of additional participants. Our findings extend previous
observations that political attitudes reflect differences in self-regulatory
conflict monitoring and recognition of emotional faces by showing that such
attitudes are reflected in human brain structure. Although our data do not
determine whether the regions play a causal role in the formation of political
attitudes, they converge with previous work to suggest a possible link between
brain structure and psychological mechanisms that mediate political
attitudes." (Kanai et al, 2011, from the summary)

The authors identify two areas of brain structure that appear to be
correlated with self-reported political orientations, implying a biological
element to political affiliation. They avoid answering the big sticky question
of whether these brain structures are caused by environment or are inherited,
thereby raising a host of questions and implications. If political orientation
is more or less 'hard-wired,' there are profound implications for the future of
civic discourse and approaches to governance. If political orientation is
learned behavior that changes brain structure, there are serious implications
to political discourse, campaigns and the media, as well as public and civic
education. In either case, a biological component in political affiliation
calls out for a review and reform of current civil discourse, at the very
least, reflecting the current findings that politics are more an expression of
unconscious brain structure and functioning, rather than the objective
reflections of the reasonable, well-considered choices of rational agents.

The Situation As It Currently Stands

Historically, democratic Western culture has assumed that we are rational
beings, capable of making choices of goals and values freely. Therefore, much
emphasis is currently focused on the media as the delivery apparatus of
partisan political messages and worldviews. Elections are assumed to be the
(more or less) accurate reflection of the free will of a reasonable sovereign
people.

Currently, American politics are highly divided between Conservatives,
primarily represented by the Republican Party and the Tea Party, and Liberals,
widely represented by the Democratic Party. Both sides have deeply held values
and priorities that often conflict, commonly visible in pitched political
battles over things like budgets, entitlements and women's reproductive rights.

In equally broad generalizations, Liberals tend to favor rights,
entitlements and a strong social net, as well as stronger government
regulations on businesses to protect the public, requiring a large centralized
government to accomplish these many tasks. Liberals tend to be better educated
(Pew Research Center, 2005) and live in urban centers. Liberals self-report to
being 20% of the population in the above-mentioned Gallup/USA Today poll.

Our government is often stalemated by divisive "hot button" issues, such as
labor rights, abortion, gay rights and entitlements; with Conservatives and
Liberals polarizing along party lines. Compromise is increasingly seen as
surrender, making the political differences between Liberals and Conservatives
seem unresolvable. This trend appears to have become more intense since the
2010 elections brought in a number of candidates backed by the very
Conservative Tea Party movement.

If these differences are biologically mediated, there are profound
implications for the nature of our democracy, the philosophical foundations of
our political institutions and policies and the future of political discourse.
Perhaps even ramifications for the future of our species.

This division of political affiliations harkens back to the very roots of
the Social Compact and the rise of democracy. Ever since there have been
democracies, the question of the correct role of the government has been
debated, as Plato so thoroughly explored in the Republic so long ago. So the
question of whether America should have a strong centralized government founded
on reciprocity, or a small efficient government that leaves individuals the
freedom to explore and create is not unexpected. Indeed, the debate dates back
to the founding of the United States. The real sticky question here is what
does it mean for democracy as a form of government if the voters are actually
acting out biologically determined genetic programming, rather than making free
and rational choices based on due consideration of the issues?

Conservatives have a larger part of their brain devoted to processing fear,
according to this study. Liberals have a larger part of their brain devoted to
processing complexity (conflicts and uncertainty). The brain structures
involved are quite interesting to investigate.

The amygdala is currently one of the most intriguing regions of the brain to
researchers, with a great deal of research focused on this region. It is an
almond-shaped structure in the medial temporal lobe of the brain. It is
associated with the olfactory system, as well as the neo-cortex. The amygdala
"has a wide range of connections with other brain regions, allowing it to
participate in a wide variety of behavioral functions... especially fear,
processing rewards and the use of rewards to motivate and reinforce behavior,
especially in learning." (Scholarpedia) The amygdala is also associated with
"aggressive, maternal, sexual and ingestive (eating and drinking) behaviors."
It is also active in emotional memory (conscious and unconscious), the
regulation or "modulation of a variety of cognitive, such as attention,
perception and explicit memory." (Scholarpedia) Explains a lot about
Conservatives, doesn't it?

The Anterior Cingulated Cortex (ACC) also participates in a wide variety of
functions, but in the case of the ACC, the emphasis is both cognition and
emotion, as in the accomplishment of difficult tasks that require fixed
attention. (Bush, Luu and Posner, 2000) The ACC is said to perform an
"executive function", in that the ACC is useful in self-control in novel
situations. The ACC is increasingly activated by "tasks that involve high
levels of mental effort," as contrasted to more automated task. The ACC is
strongly associated with "processing conflict or competition. These tie
together the idea of conflict and error monitoring." (Bush et al, 2000) Again,
this description of the activated brain structures in Liberals goes a long way
towards explaining their motivations and thinking.

Simple observation of Liberals and Conservatives in light of these brain
structures and their functions seems to support the claims of Kanai et al, that
Liberals process complexity well and Conservatives tend towards greater
emotionality and fear. But this seems to carry very strong political and
sociological implications.

The Blank Slate Revisited

Does this mean that the Conservative inclination towards increasing security
is founded in a greater biological capacity to imagine the most horrific
worst-case scenario? Does the Liberal desire for ever greater inclusiveness and
fairness actually stem from a greater cortical capacity to tolerate uncertainty
and complexity? If this is the case, as this study would indicate, is our
democracy doomed to cyclic gridlock determined by blind genetic drives? This
proposal does appear to be bourne out by the history of the American political
system, and the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. However,
this is the first time in the history of our civilization, when we have become
scientifically and statistically aware of how our own biological functioning
may impact our political and value choices.

According to recent research, the age-old Nature vs. Nurture argument has
finally been settled: the influence on development is pretty much evenly split
50/50 between genetic influences and environmental influences. (Pinker,
2002) Kanai et al. introduce a decidedly political twist to the issue. The
question then arises, under which causal category do these two affected parts
of the brain fall? In other words, for the two affected brain structures, is it
nature or nurture that determines how a young brain develops? This is a
question fraught with political peril. Although Kanai et al. avoid answering
this most difficult of sticky questions, other current research does give us
some insight into brain structure causality. Steven Pinker informs us that,
while learning may produce changes in the brain, learning does not change brain
structure. (Pinker, 2002) Other recent brain structure studies indicate that
the distribution of grey matter in the brain is highly heritable. (Thompson et
al, 2001) Both the ACC and the amygdala are composed of grey matter, implying
that the relative sizes of these structures are genetically determined, and
therefore that political affiliation is largely an expression of neural
biology, rather than any consciously considered deliberation of issues and
candidates. Sticky indeed.

Implications of a Biologically Based Political Orientation

If political orientation is biologically determined, then politics melds
into biological history. And most of our high-minded claims about rights,
security and agency are not reliably objective or rational, despite their
claims to the contrary. Many other pertinent questions are aroused by the mere
suggestion of a genetically-driven development of politics.

A biologically derived model for politics would imply that there are two
distinct dominant biological configurations that express through the political
affiliation with either Conservatism or Liberalism. Essentially, this study
implies that there are two politically dominant strains of humans in America.
These strains struggle for dominance and control of the government, following
the biological imperatives built into their brain structures.

Neural scientist and social commentator, George Lakoff, in 2008 explored the
impact of neurology on politics in The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand
21st-Century Politics with an 18th-Century Mind, Lakoff takes a decidedly
partisan position in the question of how to deal with the biological tendencies
inherent in political affiliation, stating "[t]his book has two uses: first, to
give the reader a deeper understanding of our political life, and second, to
make progressive political advocacy more effective." (Lakoff, 2008) Lakoff uses
the most current research available to him, which focuses on neural binding
theory (which allows us to combine concepts and perceptions processed in
different parts of the brain into single complex concepts) and framing (the
socio-cultural contextualizing of concepts into a larger narrative, mediated by
habituated neural synapses). This is research into brain 'software,' if you
will, while Kanai et al is more focused on the brain 'hardware' of brain
structure volume. Kania et al's study did not address the question of those who
changed their political orientation. Such research could shed some light on the
nature v. nurture debate, and would have broad implications for public and
private education. As Lakoff notes, frames and neural binds can be affected by
experience and education, especially at the unconscious level. (Lakoff, 2008)
But, as we saw above, brain structure is more biologically determined. (Pinker,
2002 and Thompson et al, 2001)

According to the implications of a neurologically grounded politics, at the
current time, the strain of humanity that processes fear and emotions most
efficiently is seeking to gain political ascendancy, using arguments about the
budget and job creation versus the record deficits and large government of
their opposition, even though the Conservative track record on handling such
responsibilities as balanced budgets and creating jobs has not been effective.
Although the popular media and pundits would have us believe that political
choices are made through consideration of issues and policies, statistics do
not bear this claim out. According to the University of Massachusetts political
science professor and Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, Thomas
Ferguson, statistically, Conservatives and Liberals have been self-identifying
at near the same rates for nearly four decades.

As (Fiorina, 2009) shows, whether you rely on Gallup, General Social
Survey, or the National Election Survey data, sharp ideological shifts in
American opinion are not to be found. Between 1972 and 2004, for example, even
the much-touted shift in the percentage of the population styling themselves
"liberal," "conservative," and "moderate" bounced very little. Between the
1970s and the 2000s, the "liberal" label declined slightly in popularity, but
only by about 5 points. All through the period the largest category of people
who expressed a preference self-identified as "moderates," while the percentage
of people thinking of themselves as extreme conservatives actually fell.
(Ferguson, 2011)

So, despite the heated rhetoric of pundits and the perceptions promulgated
by cable political analysts, there has not been a widespread change in
political affiliation in the last forty years. This would seem to support the
contention that political affiliation goes deeper and is driven by more than
just fleeting political issues and contingencies.

However, there is other research that challenges a static political field,
as the makeup of the American population is changing. According to fertility
trends, the birthrate among Liberals is dropping, while the birthrate amongst
Conservatives is on the rise (NPR Broadcast, March 2006). Conservatives tend
towards more traditional values, such as early marriage and large families,
whereas Liberals tend to postpone marriage and children, opting for pursuing
careers and smaller families.

Lakoff takes the position that Conservativism is in the ascendancy
politically because of a greater capacity to frame the issues of the day in a
narrative that appeals to both Conservatives and those who may have some
leanings towards the Conservative worldview. (Lakoff, 2008)

This prompts another sticky question: is Conservatism is more adaptive or
regressive than Liberalism? An argument can be made for both sides. The rising
birthrate of Conservatives would seem to indicate greater adaptability and
fitness, in an evolutionary sense. But Liberals display greater complexity,
which is a hallmark of evolution. Which interpretation is appropriate is
unclear, perhaps this is why Kanai et al. stayed mute on the matter. However,
according to some theories of biology, such as in cases of adaptionism, there
are "some factors that can prevent natural selection from presenting the
fittest gene." (Sober, YEAR????) There are some circumstances in nature in
which the fittest do not necessarily survive and thrive. So, is an increasing
number of Conservatives indicative of evolution or, conversely, is it evidence
of a species in evolutionary decline? This would be a very interesting line of
future research, with far-reaching ramifications.

Philosophical Implications

A frightening scenario inspired by the idea of biologically-determined
political orientations precipitates nightmares of an Orwellian science fiction
plot, where unlucky victims are dragged by jack-booted troopers into MRIs, to
determine their true political affiliations, in the throes of genetic-political
genocide. This would seem to fit into the same category of ethics as genetic
testing by insurance companies to determine risk of coverage, only worse.

If political orientation is strongly or even just moderately impacted by
biology, then claims of voluntary agency and free elections become impossible
to sustain, if not moot. How can one be considered to be truly free to choose a
candidate if the choice is likely to be genetically pre-determined? Kant,
Rousseau and Locke all based the legitimacy of a government on the consent of
the governed, assuming those governed to be rational agents, capable making
their own independent choices based on rational self-interest. Yet, this
research challenges this claim to the dignity and rationality of humans.
Indeed, Lakoff claims that political decisions are often as much as 98%
determined by unconscious, neurological processes. (Lakoff, 2008) How can any
election ever again be regarded as an objective reflection of the purely
rational will of the governed, rather than as a census of the brain structure
of actual voters? The role of reason in moral and political agency is called
into question, as the study implies that reason is employed by the biological
imperative to rationally justify the foregone conclusion determined by brain
structure. Millenia of philosophy and theology lose their gravitas, if they are
reduced to the products of selfish genes creating their own justification.
Kant, Locke and Rousseau's theories on agency and sovereignty would need review
in light of this new biological perspective, at the very least.

The philosophical foundations of both the Conservative and Liberal political
agendas are also called into question, as is the Social Contract in general, if
political orientation is strongly or moderately impacted by brain structure.
Issues of budgetary priorities, entitlements and national security are now cast
in an entirely different light. If Democrats seek a stronger government that
fills a multitude of social roles in response to their increased capacity to
simultaneously consider two or more opposing ideas at the same time because of
a biological drive, then their judgment in those issues can no longer be
regarded as anything approaching objective. Similarly, the rationality of
Republican willingness to approve tax cuts, as well as any and all military
spending at the expense of social entitlements must also be called into
question. Indeed, the whole two-party system begins to look somewhat
questionable in the light of competing brain structures.

To make matters worse, according to Lakoff, common buzzwords used in
political discourse often denote different meanings to Conservatives and
Liberals, making misunderstanding and misconstrual commonplace in the political
area. Politically charged words such as "freedom," "national security," and
"health care" carry different implications for Liberals than they do for
Conservatives, as mediated through pre-set cognitive meaning frames and
habituated neural wirings. (Lakoff, 2008) Therefore, the sphere of public
discourse is actually much more complex and contextually determined than has
ever been imagined or understood in the public media. What may seem a
straightforward issue with clear facts and indications to one side may be
totally unclear and frightening to the other side, even though the language is
exactly the same.

The Role of Civil Discourse and Education

If we are to take the implications of Kanai et al's work seriously, then we
can only expect continued political intrigue and gridlock until such time as
the Conservative population grows enough to fully overtake the Liberal strain
of homo sapiens sapiens – an occasion for optimism for Conservatives and
despair for Liberals. However, given the political statistics for the last
forty years, this is likely to take a very long time. (Ferguson, 2011) While we
can choose to allow the current trends to follow their trajectory, we can also
choose a more conscious perspective to the history of social-political
development and to government, in the effort to transcend the
biologically-driven impulses, towards a more inclusive rationality that
acknowledges the differences in brain structure and neurological framing.

Lakoff takes the position that Liberals (whom he broadly lumps in with
progressives) must undertake to bring into consciousness those unconscious
processes that determine both political affiliation and the worldviews they
exemplify. He advocates the use of the media by progressives to reframe
political issues according to a more coherent moral/social narrative that would
appeal to moderates and those Conservatives with moderate leanings, something
he says the extreme Conservatives have been most effective in accomplishing to
their benefit. (Lakoff, 2008)

If winning the political game is the goal, then biologically driven
Conservatives need only shepherd their own flocks until they have reached
sufficient size to overwhelm the more slow-growing Liberal population. However,
given the 5% dip in Liberals over forty years, this is likely to take several
generations to accomplish. If winning is the primary goal for Liberals, then
genetic Liberals need to institute a breeding program as soon as possible.
However, if only winning politically is the goal for either affiliation, then
the species loses, and potentially loses big, as the selfish genes of the
biological imperative reproduces itself blindly, without considering dwindling
resources or the human sacrifices of war.

Instead, we can choose to use the knowledge contained in this research to
gain a better understanding of the motivations of both our opponents and
ourselves. We can learn to recognize when a political movement, proposal or
candidate is speaking from their genetic brain structures, and take that into
consideration when making important decisions for the future of our nation and
the planet, such as in prosecuting wars, shepherding natural resources or
extending either entitlements or tax cuts. We can choose to become larger than
the sum of our brain structure, and gain true freedom of choice and agency by
making unconscious processes increasingly conscious, without the invisible
chains of reflexive instinct. As Rabbi Bradley Hirschfield notes, when we
accuse our opponents for threatening us, we can learn to ask ourselves what we
are doing that might be frightening our opponents, and setting off their
hard-wired alarm systems. (Hirschfield, 2008)

In order for this increased awareness of how biology drives politics to have
a favorable impact on both the Conservative and the Liberal strains of homo
sapiens sapiens, civic discourse must reflect this broader understanding of
human nature, and public education must be included in the effort. This, in
turn, constellates a universe of considerations, as questions about curriculum
and perspective (read: political orientation) emerge. Who can be trusted to
teach (or even discuss) the role of biological determinism without being
tainted by their own biologically derived orientation?

The concept of Agency, upon which our political and legal system is based,
crumbles if our wills are biologically constrained, without the opportunity of
transcendence. In such circumstances, we can no longer be said to have truly
free elections, and the justification of prosecution and punishment for many
crimes are called into question. If a crime was biologically inspired (such as
in the case of a brain disorder), what level of responsibility can the
perpetrator be held to? Likewise, if a strong political affiliation is
biologically inspired (even if it is not medically pathological), what level of
responsibility can voters and politicians be held to? If an individual's
position on 'hot topic' issue such as abortion or gay marriage is
neurologically determined, no amount of scientific or statistical proof will
convince. It would seen that the preservation of the philosophical foundations
of our social and political institutions would call to us to seek the higher
ground of a more inclusive variety of reason if brain structure were a
determinate factor in political orientation. (Lakoff, 2008) But not all people
are so considerate of the ethical underpinnings of the social contract as to
want to risk any serious challenge to the socio-political status quo.

Without accepting the opportunity for greater awareness of how our political
choices are constrained by biology, we condemn both ourselves and our
descendents to unwitting slavery to our brain structures (to whatever degree
those structures impact political behavior). We cannot claim to have free will,
either politically or morally, without consciously rising above our biological
configurations.

Again, further research would be very helpful to ascertain the actual degree
of impact of brain structure on political behaviors and orientations. Here, I
am just exploring possible implications of a moderate to strong impact of
biological influence, as that brings out the implications in greater contrast
for consideration. The actual degree of biological impact on political
orientation was not reported in Kanai et al's study.

Objections

Conservatives can rightly claim that most scientists and academics are
Liberals, and therefore biased, as is any research they may produce. (Kurtz,
2005) By extension, the authors of Political Orientations Are Correlated with
Brain Structures could well also be biologically biased, which motivates the
direction and definitions of their research. In this case, it is impossible to
rely on scientists to give a true representation of human nature when it
conflicts with their own biological Liberal tendencies. No one can be trusted
to give a purely objective and rational account of any biological link to
political orientation, so therefore, this study is not to be trusted. Any
attempt at establishing a biological link to political orientation can be used
as propaganda. Nothing can be done to avoid future political stalemates, and
all efforts to improve the quality and level of political discourse are
suspect. This goes back to Lakoff's observation that Progressives and
Conservatives can often mean entirely different things while using the same
vocabulary, without even knowing the difference exists. (Lakoff, 2008)

This is a somewhat bleak and pessimistic view, as it presumes that our
government is prey to unconscious forces that we are helpless to control or
understand. We are in no position to help ourselves nor trust the offer of help
from anyone else. While this may actually be the case, it is not in our best
interests as a species to conclude that this condition cannot be transcended.
If we do not attempt to rise above our genetic tendencies by bringing the
awareness of the role of unconscious brain processes in politics and political
discourse, we will be ruled by these narrow construals of biological
constraints, and we as a nation are doomed to increasing cycles of political
battles and games of "chicken."

It can be contended that the study's sampling of ninety young adults is too
small. The University of London's study was presumably conducted on students,
and therefore, mature adults (who had perhaps changed political affiliation a
time or two) were not included in the sampling. A different dataset might be
derived from a sampling of older participants, and different implications would
no doubt arise. Many questions about how individuals seem to be of a different
political affiliation than their parents, or come to change their views through
life experiences is not considered in this preliminary study. Lakoff attributes
the existence of those who have changed political views and/or affiliations to
the malleability of neural bindings, which can be strengthened with repetition
and weakened by exclusion. (Lakoff, 2008) Until more research on this subject
is conducted, we cannot go much farther than conjecture as to how much of our
worldview is made up through biology and how much through socio-cultural
programming.

Kanai et al. do not seek to establish causation for the development of the
brain structures, implying that this is an open question. Yet other current
research clearly suggests that the distribution of grey matter is genetically
derived. It is unclear why the authors did not include this in their
explanation. If there is a constraining circumstance in the ACC and amygdala
that determines grey matter differently from the rest of the brain, the authors
do not discuss it. Perhaps they were seeking to avoid asking the sticky
questions that could risk appearing biased towards one orientation or the
other.

Both brain science and Philosophy of Mind theories have yet to establish how
the brain and mind interact. The relationship of brain structure and thought
may not be causal, but merely influential. Again, the degree of impact of brain
structure on political orientation still awaits more research.

Conclusion

"Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structures in Young
Adults" raises some interesting implications for politics and socio-political
theory. These considerations of "Hard-Wired" politics are necessarily
preliminary. Once more research has been conducted into brain science, the
possibilities explored here can be further developed. Until we know more for
certain, it is interesting to consider the implications of a moderate to strong
impact of brain structure on political behavior, in order to glimpse our
potential trajectory.

The implications of a biologically driven politics can be frightening to
consider, yet we fail to contemplate these sticky questions at our own peril,
especially if our political decisions are largely determined by unconscious
instinctually driven motives. If unconscious biological drives are impacting
our rationality, are we truly able to make wise decisions in our own long and
short term best interests as individuals? If it is the case that a moderate to
large degree of our political behavior is biologically predictable, we need to
examine whether that behavior is actually in the best interests of our
nation... indeed, if our political choices are in the best interests for the
survival of the human species. It would be an ironic shame if we use up all our
resources and sacrificed our young to blindly fulfill an unconscious,
biological drive, without ever realizing the possibility of another option that
could save the planet.

Bibliography

Brack, Charles. "The Thermodynamics of Conservatives and Liberals - the
Biogeography of Political-Religious Affiliation." Neuropolitics.org February
2009